Jump to content



Royal Melbourne v Kingston Heath

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#16 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 04:20 AM

100% agreed about KH#15. It is most definitely a "hit the green or make bogey" hole. What is does have however is considerably more width on offer if you can hit the right length (over big bertha left of the ridge on the RHS).

Mac explained the merits of RMW#5 pretty well, but I think I'd like it better if there were some options like there are on RMW#7.

Mac, I reckon KH#6 is a much tougher drive since the tee and the green got moved back and the bunker on the left side of the fairway was created. What a wonderful green too compared with the old one.

KH#11! I wish I knew the truth about "that" bunker. It's better since Clayton design flattened out some of the divot laden dips in the fairway and reduced the number of potential unplayable lies in the bunker, but how about just chopping down a swathe of trees so you can drive past it on the LHS? One of the committee once explained that some people thought it was good for the course to have a controversial feature, so we should leave it even if it is stupid.

#17 ttitheridge


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5492 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 06:27 AM

I think it is almost a shame to be raising this chestnut, especially as I think there are better discussions to have than picking one of these two courses both ranked at the pinnacle of Australian golf and having a rip at it.

Reading both rhseehy's and St Andrews' comments, it is a shame they have both fallen into the same trap they are sick of others doing themselves. Namely, that they would not appreciate over time some of the automatic kudos handed RMW, particularly by those with an opinion but not perhaps a reasoned architectural mind to back it up other than what they know is the mass accepted wisdom. And that even those who have very worthy opinions on both courses who defer to RMW as the superior will perhaps be vulnerable to overstating potential KH weakness or understating same at RMW. To all passionate Kingston Heath supporters, this is a common cross to bear.

However, you have both done exactly the same thing to the contrary, in making comments about parts of RMW that make sitting still at the computer next to impossible.

Going on your collective opening comments in this thread:

St Andrews,

RMW#2 is a great hole with an elite quality green complex. It remains a great long two shotter, and is one number on a card away from being considered one of the finest long par 4s on the sandbelt.

The dismisssing of RMW#3 as an easy short par 4 is as criminal as wrongly calling KH#3 a long iron - pitch boring short par 4. It too has an elite green complex.

RMW#12 is utterly world class, and cannot be dismissed as laughably as you've done. To say that KH is "clearly a better hole" without even respect for having to back it up far more extensively is ludicrous.

RMW#16 is one of the finest long par 3s in Melbourne and though I feel KH#16 is a very good hole, it is no peer for its opposite number, nor is the contest between them even close.


I won't join the pissing contest between KH#15 and RMW#5, as it seems as with my opening comment in this post, a terrible shame to be debating these against each other. But derogatory comment over RMW#5 or denying it its mantle is as reasonable as dismissing KH#15 because the landing zone is above the eye and so some would argue (horrifically incorrectly) that it is a weakness. Such comment is absurd, and so is to take the naturally set RMW hole and sum it up as some sort of just an important tee shot into some pretty amphitheatre with a penal miss.

I could design a hole to fit your description of RMW#5 tomorrow, and that of some of your other back handers, but I could spend a lifetime never coming within a stratosphere of the real RMW#5.

In other words, another example of robbing RMW of respect in the same way you'd be sick of people doing in taking KH for granted.

RMW#6 has been and still is one of the great par 4s in Australian golf. Does your slopey green comment ask for a flat and boring one? One that would be such an anticlimax after the journey to the foot of the hill and awaiting the challenge to come?

RMW#12 is a great hole. What is it trying to be? Knowing your knowledge, at least you are not ignorant enough to be referring to its par number on the card. So therefore I'm not sure where the confusion lies. It is a challenging exacting second shot for the elite player and a long two shotter for the mid range golfer or a hole where they must either gamble with the second or play safe short of the fairway's end. I am troubled in finding a glaring weakness to this hole. Whilst your "lack of 3 shotter" comment has merit, I find it not to be a weakness. Just like I find it not to be a weakness at KH that at this year's Open Qualifying, my average distance bag hit 6 iron, 8 iron, 3 iron into the par 5s on one of the days. In other words, next time an ignoramus loses your respect with a formulaic comment about the sameness of KH par 5s direction, remember your near formulaic summation of the 5s at RMW. As stand alone holes, they are more than worthy for my liking.

I will also back AndyA's comment that RMW#3-7 is a stretch very hard to easily beat for quality among five consecutive hole stretches anywhere throughout the planet.

RMW has weaknesses. If we had to be harsh, we could surely between a number of us throw up a number of points of imperfection. But the KH supporters here have done themselves a disservice by either shrugging their shoulders over some RMW tried and trusted strengths that have stood the test of time to earn their elite respect, or have taken possible niggling notches and tried to portray them as gaping holes.

#18 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:54 AM

Hi Tony.
I didn't make the link between RMW#5 and KH#15 but I hold the opinion of the two people who did make the link in the highest regard.

I don't think I ever said anything more derogatory about RMW#5 than the fact that I just don't get what everybody sees in it. Mac explained what he saw in it and that helps. Nobody else has said anything about the hole other than abusing me because I don't see what the fuss is about. What do you see in the hole?

Slopey green on #6. Would I like a flat and boring green? Surely we can elevate the discussion beyond that level! Greens elevated above the fairway are tough to get right. Think though about #6W and #4E. Both are uphill shots, the green on #6W is very weak when compared with #4E. That's why I'd rate #6W a 7 rather than a 9 or 10. Now you tell me why it's a 10.

#12 is a good hole. On most courses it would be the highlight. The second shot for a good player is a bit like trying to land the ball on a giant pimple. The tee shot is pretty bland. I'm sure that those who have played a lot of UK links golf will see more in it than I do. Do you believe it is the same class as RMW#7 or RMW#17?

When considering the very best courses the three shot hole issue is one of the reasons the composite course is better than the west. At least we've got a few years yet before we'll be calling RME#17 a par 4!

You are right about the three par fives (and the third) all playing in the same direction at KH. You over-argue the issue here. My point was that many people are blind to RMW's flaws, and I happen to think that hole by hole KH is a better course. Not by much, not prettier, not better routed, not grander, not more spacious, not more worshipped, just slightly better hole for hole.

I think you should stretch your #3

It is the quality of the green and its surrounds on #2 that make greens like #11 and #12 look a bit pale by comparison. If you think #11 was deliberately designed to resemble a tilted plate then say so, and say why. If you don't think it resembles a tilted plate tell me what I've missed. If you think it is a better green than #18E let me know.

I'm interested in people's opinions, but I'm not interested in ritualistic, unthinking "RM is the best by a mile" statements, nor do I expect to be almost called a golfing heretic just because I expect people to be able to back up their opinions with well reasoned arguments.

Mac has done it. Looking back on your post you've done it a bit. Bring on a more considered golf debate!

#19 MatthewM


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1857 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 08:56 AM

Sorry Ross.

I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining what I thought were the strengths of RMW, highlighting some parts of the design you otherwise may have missed. I also thought I did it in a way which didn't slam you. Sorry if you feel I was something other than friendly and considered.

You first post, and particularly post 12 in this thread suggest to me that we will not agree on RMW's strengths no matter what I say here. We are speaking different languages. To view some holes as you do, and to describe such things as the third hole and sixth green as you have, makes no sense to me.

May I suggest you go to www.golfclubatlas.com and click on courses by country, and read Royal Melbourne's write up, if you've not already done so. Ran's words may change your perspective on RMW a little.


P.S. The one thing we do agree on is the fact that both layouts are wonderful, and we are blessed that we can play them as often as we do. Try playing a course of comparable quality in the US with the same frequency!

#20 ttitheridge


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5492 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE: rsheehy @ Dec 30 2005, 09:54 PM

My point was that many people are blind to RMW's flaws...

I'm interested in people's opinions, but I'm not interested in ritualistic, unthinking "RM is the best by a mile" statements...

Here's the bones of my reason for reply (no, I didn't criticise the direction of the KH long holes, I used it as an example of where a short sighted person might throw up unwarranted criticism).

You will see in my post that I clearly stated what you have done above that I've partially pasted here. That a KH fan has to put up with exactly what you have indicated above. A ferver for RMW that is often gained blindly and by convention rather than dissection. No qualms there.

But you stated the following in your first post:

"No true 3 shot holes.
As I've said before I just don't get RMW #5.
A mid length par 3 with a narrow slopey green. Big deal.
#6 has that silly slopey green
#8 & #9 are dull--no surprise they don't make the compo course.
#10 is just a hole
#12 What is it trying to be?
#18 is one of the poorest driving holes on the sandbelt."

I personally believe that this damning of the par 5s, #5, #6, #10, #12 with such faint praise is derogatory in itself. Yes, I do feel that the collective comments on the par 5s would appear to the first time reader that they may collectively be lacking if one played the course. So without belying the quality of a single hole, they've been swept aside by a comment possibly as shortsighted as a dismissal of KH's long holes on the basis of routing, again a train of thought that ignores them individually. And the comments on the other holes made me fall off my chair. I'm sure if I played all the world's great holes, there'd be some I don't get too. But if it is me versus most of planet earth, then perhaps I'll defer and find other areas to promote my cause. Nothing unreasonable in your overall views if you think that way, but I'll repeat something from my previous post which I believe to be the most crucial point of either yours or St Andrews' initial posts:

That the blind RMW supporter who can't back up their view will have to in the process, deny KH of its quality with a similar lack of enthusiasm for part of KH's brilliance. I feel you and St Andrews have done exactly that of RMW in your promotion of KH, thereby falling into the same trap.

Don't forget, some of the accepted iconic status of RMW is not just blindly held, but in many cases, believed by those with a lot more wisdom than I in architecture and backed up every time those people play it again.

You want considered justification, I'll give you this on #6. The green is a masterpiece. I have seen it competently pinned all over the place. Only deliberate attempts to push the envelope in dry conditions renders fair portions of the green too hot to pin. Don't use modern low cut and high speed practices (which aren't in place much of the year and I've rarely ever seen them here outside of the times I carried a bag and had a dude's name on my back) to dismiss a green as "slopey." With the right speeds, slopey is great golf. It has more square feet of pinnable space than a vast number of fine holes of similar length or what have you most of the year round. It has the entire right half of the green virtually, with superb demanding but perfectly fair points front left and back left. These spots are even used quite fairly during pro tournaments in the dried heat of February.

The tee shot has held its quality despite evolving against its will over time. It was once a tough carry, which has now become a very thoughtful line of play decision. There's fat to the left where the might of space results in an awkward lie to play in to the green. And there's more advantageous room to the right which is much tighter and any veering from the intended line brings all manner of trouble into play. It has room around the green for the member requiring a 5, with both the space to the right and the right bunker not overtly threatening, and yet consigning the average player to a near certain 3 more shots unless they play a very fine shot from there. For the good player, the second shot has a myriad of options and both opportunities and threats galore. The shot looks more daunting than it is (especially for a right side hole location) but still plays tough if the player doesn't get it right. The knowledge of the trouble that can be incurred for a miss is penal enough. Frankly, this green after an uphill shot is a gem. It threatens and penalises, but is quite benign if played calmly and with reassurance unless the hole is cut far left. For the player playing the hole well, the result is never in the bag. For the average player chopping it, a conservative route means they are never diabolically in the poop. This is justifiably one of the nations' greatest par 4s.

When you say that #5 is a "mid length par 3 with a narrow slopey green. Big deal." And that #6 "has that silly slopey green" and that "#10 is just a hole", you floor me, in addition to your post on #3-#6. It makes part of the debate unfair, and I'll explain why. You've taken some great holes, torn down their veneer, and then expect somebody to rebuild their respect from scratch in order to provide acceptable debate. Even without automatically revering RMW, there is a level of

long earnt

respect and quality in those holes, which sure, must be justified by a debater, but it would be ridiculous to think they have to have their credibility rebuilt from scratch in order to comprise of acceptable debate. Again, the KH supporter takes apart part of RMW's reputation in the workshop, and expects the RMW fan to put it back together.

How about building KH's credentials to take your stance, instead of taking apart some of RMW's? You see, it aint ritualistic praise of RMW for me. I actually believe part of what you say is possibly hype. It is up to you to convince me by promoting KH, not saying things about RMW I personally don't believe to be true.

Every approach made to me by a competitor to switch jobs seems focused around why I shouldn't be where I am, and not enough regarding why I should be where they want me to go. As soon as they use parts of my existing position as an assumed weakness, or say that things I like about my job I perhaps overrate, they've lost me because they need to make their case completely independently of the existence of my current position. If they can't, why would I go for it if I am very satisfied where I am?

You see, I believe RMW has done a lot to earn its frequent spot in the world top 10, and it is hardly unjustified for a world top 10 course to give off some sort of holy glow. I personally think it is revered because it should be, not just because Johnny Punter grabs the popular ball and runs with it.

#21 _Andrew_


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2337 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 06:22 PM

This argument is more about personal opinion than facts. I believe RMW to be a greater course than KH, but if people disagree, then fair enough. In my opinion, #3W is one of the better short 2 shot holes in the world, but if someone disagrees, even after they have had its elevating qualities explained, then so be it.

I’m sure golfers on Long Island have similar discussions regarding Shinnecock Hills & NGLA and probably never come to agreement.

#22 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:31 PM

you certainly didn't slam me. You were playing the ball, not the man. We do agree that both layouts are wonderful, and our tastes in golf courses are very similar.

I think that where we differ here is that we are focussed on slightly different things.

Normally we all take the ambience, grandeur, etc into account when we're describing a golf course because that is a large part of the pleasure of playing the game. It is wonderful to walk around the dunescape of National Moonah, the tropical wonderland of Paradise Palms and the majesty of Royal Melbourne.

So far so good. Now let's focus in on what has been done on the land. I think Mac sums up Kingston Heath's attraction pretty well. "KH might be the greatest design ever on a small site without many natural features.
That makes it a masterpiece worthy of study...". Further, the changes during the Graeme Grant era improved the playing qualities of the course almost beyond recognition in many places (think 1st, 6th, 13th and 18th greens for example).

Ok. We're still on the same page, but here comes the uncomfortable bit. RM has deliberately avoided all changes until recently because any change would have been considered sacrilege.

So now we can get to the bones of the matter. We are standing over our ball on the 6th fairway RMW with a mid-iron in our hands. What are we trying to achieve? First we want distance control because past the hole is death and too short means being in the bunker or having the ball roll back down the slope. We aren't trying too hard directionally to do anything much more than find the middle of the green. We don't really want a high shot or a low shot. We don't want to work the ball to the left or the right. Going back to the tee, where do we want to put the tee shot and why?

By looking at the hole like that we have a true indication of its playing value. No controversy there I hope!

Now we stand on the tee of #4E. What are we trying to achieve? First we have to make up our mind what kind of shot we are trying to play because there is huge variation depending on pin position and wind conditions. How do we feel today? Do we want to aim a little left and play a slight fade blocking out the left side, or do we want to aim a little right and play a slight draw so the ball runs to the back of the green. Do we want to play a high shot to get some stop, or a lower ball to avoid the wind. The person who conducted this lesson on 6W and 4E (and other holes) was Lee Trevino and I've got to say I learned more about the real qualities of RM from a playing point of view from him than from any other source.

No controversy still I hope.

Now let's rate the two holes from a playing characteristics point of view. Are they both 10s? If not then which one has greater playing value at the green? If RM4E is a 9 then what is RM6W?

I think you can go right through RMW from a ball striking point of view and pick out the holes which really stand out and which are a little ordinary.

When you do that for RMW and KH, the results are very surprising.
That is the core of what I am saying, however clumsily I put my case from time to time (yes I know I shouldn't have used any of the "s" words

plate). That's just me calling a spade a bloody shovel.

thanks for your comments on #6. I agree with you. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say regarding my 6W/4E comparison above. This I believe is a deeper level of analysis.

Yes, I have most definitely and deliberately torn down the veneer. Unfair--no way. I want to get to the real nitty gritty behind the facades. What's in your mind as you play each shot.

#23 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:35 PM

Andrew wrote

This argument is more about personal opinion than facts.

Quite right. The outcome is also less important than the discussion.

The end result should be that we all see things we didn't see before.

#24 AndyA


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1609 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:44 PM

QUOTE: rsheehy @ Dec 31 2005, 09:31 AM

So now we can get to the bones of the matter. We are standing over our ball on the 6th fairway RMW with a mid-iron in our hands. What are we trying to achieve? First we want distance control because past the hole is death and too short means being in the bunker or having the ball roll back down the slope. We aren't trying too hard directionally to do anything much more than find the middle of the green. We don't really want a high shot or a low shot. We don't want to work the ball to the left or the right. Going back to the tee, where do we want to put the tee shot and why?

By looking at the hole like that we have a true indication of its playing value. No controversy there I hope!

Ross, I cannot agree with this analysis. There is so much more to 6W than simply hitting a straight shot to the middle of the green, especially with a mid-iron in hand. Say the flag is cut 10-12 paces on, on the left side of the green. How aggressive do you want to be with the approach? Can you land the ball over the bunker with sufficient spin to stop short of the hole, because past it is death. Alternatively, you can hit a low draw/hook to the right of the bunker, and chase it up the green, hopefully finishing hole high, or just short of hole high.

I've tried both shots when playing to this green.

With a shorter club in hand (9I or wedge), shot trajectory is critical. Hit it too high with lots of spin, and the ball may screw back off the front of the green. With such a short shot, many players can't help but go straight at the flag, and such a shot requires a high level of skill.

#25 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:52 PM

Thanks AndyA. Your answer provides an interesting contrast to tt's.

How do you compare the merits of 4E or 6W?

#26 John J Jones

John J Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 08:50 PM

It's always interesting to hear what people have to say about courses they know very well, in this case Ross and StAndy on KH. Its easy to throw out the old Mackenzie line about everyone loving their own pile of mud and most golfers rate their own course higher than perhaps they deserve but with the really good courses the more you play them, the more you know them, the better they get. You see little things, slopes and bumps that influence certain lines or pin positions that even someone that has played the course a dozen times might never have seen.

Perhaps all the comments up to now show is that Ross and StAndy know KH very well.


I rate 6W as a far superior hole to 4E. Leaving aside the tee shot on 6W (perhaps with 17W one of the best in the country) the shot into the green is a completely different thought process for me. When the pin is cut left on both I'm happy to aim right on 4E and take my chances with the putter. Its a tough long putt but I'll take 2 putts from there most times. 6W is a very different proposition. If I bail right I'm faced with an extremely difficult putt. It's going to break a loooong way right to left and the chances are I'll have 3 if not 4 putts. So suddenly I have some very serious decisions to make on 6W when it's cut left. Do I go at the pin? How far right can I go and have a reasonable putt? Distance is key if I bail or go at the pin. Even on a bail right I don't want to be too far up the back because downhill and cross slope is murder. 4E just doesn't require the same thought process. There is no real penalty for playing "safe".

Every so often amongst the expletives Clayton says something interesting. At PN one day he looked at one of the par 3's and said "It's only a tee shot and there is a limit to the strategy, so it has to at least look good". 5W is stunningly beautiful and one of the few par 3's where hitting it 6 ft above the hole scares the crap out of me.

Reading a couple of the comments on 10W had me shaking my head. Again let's leave aside the tee shot - and it tempts like no other. It's a flat green - that's the whole idea. You are face with a 50-100m pitch to a smallish target that drops away on most sides. Short and you are in the swale - long and you are dead over the back. The flatness of the green is what makes it such a hard shot. There is no slope to use, no bumps to reference. You just need to execute that pitch very, very well. Oh and there is enough slope to make a 15 footer you think is straight, miss.

RMW has it's low points. The moguls left on 1, the first 400m on 15 but in a lot of places it reaches heights that only 15 at KH aspires to.


#27 ThanksForAllTheFish


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1852 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 09:14 PM

I can think of quite a few holes at both RM & KH where "hitting it 6 ft above the hole scares the crap out of me". I don't think RMW#5 is at all unique in that respect!

Excellent post JJJ, but for one quibble with "aspires to".

I don't believe that KH committee and membership aspire to anything other than building on its heritage as a world class course and club. The course can't aspire to anything as it is an inanimate object. I'm not aware of anybody at KH looking over their shoulder to see what others are doing or thinking.

Changing tack somewhat, this aspirational thing really put me off with St Andrews Beach. Fancy being so clueless as to state that they were aiming for a specific ranking in world golf.

I feel absolutely confident that when Clayton and Doak put Barnbougle together they were not setting out to create Australia's number anything, nor would they have been aspiring to match any features of any other course. I'll bet any money that they set out to create something amazing and the rest of the world can rank it or analyse it as they see fit.

I'd be pretty confident the same approach was taken at RM all those years ago. KH's brief was most definitely stated to build a course that would stand the test of time.

#28 the_unreal_jeffrey


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1928 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:09 PM

Interesting thread.

What is the second best hole at KH?

How many holes at RM are better than that hole?

#29 St_Andrews


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3315 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 12:38 AM

For the record I am not a KH member with no hidden agenda - I am just a student of the game who has no issue in debating the merits of golf courses whether they be RMW or any other course I've seen.

I think a lot have missed the point of my original post. As far as I am concerned the Composite Course at RM is clearly and absolutely the undisputed #1 layout in Australia and well worthy of it’s representation as a regular Top 10 World Course. (ttitheridge: please note it is the Composite course and not RMW that is highlighted here). But the Composite Course isn’t an ‘original’ stand-alone layout as such – as I ask - how often have you played it ? And as such RMW is often subsequently referred to as the ‘best course’ in Australia - but I ask simply - why ?

MM – you raise some salient points but I beg to differ on at least two of them:
1) just because RMW is on better land doesn’t make it a better course
2) MacKenzie did the bunkering on both courses and personally I think he did a better job overall on KH (esp: considering the land)

Granted RMW’s holes 4-6 are ‘World Class’ and probably the best stretch of holes in Australia - certainly no arguments from me to the contrary - and are glad you raised the point that KH doesn’t have a ‘weak’ (I prefer a different term) hole and as far as I am concerned has some ‘World Class’ holes in it’s own right: 3 / 6 / 12 / 15 to name some.

With regard to your points about the match-play format I used above – agree it isn’t fallible - it was used as a point of reference for discussion. I would also be interested to hear your thoughts as to which holes at RMW you feel are ‘less impressive’ than others ?

Mac – yes I do feel it would be better viewed as a P4 as opposed to P5 on the scorecard.

Keeperof thegreen – RMW was where I scored better

ttitheridge – apologies for my brevity in my original post and as such, poor choice of words but with regard to #3 I am suggesting that whilst RMW is a great hole I believe KH’s tighter drive and offset green to be a better challenge as a short P4.

RMW #12 once again is a very solid hole but as I suggested choices off the tee on KH lead to different challenges and thus gets my approval as a better P5 – one of the best in Australia. If you go left of the bunker in the middle of the fairway you have the hazard to contend with but your 2nd shot is easier as you play away from the trouble down the left hand side – the only issue then is the further right you go you then have to go over the deep greenside traps protecting the green for your 3rd. If you go right off the tee then the trouble of the fairway traps down the left hand side comes more into play as does the narrowing of the fairway – such a route is difficult but gives a better angle into the green for your 3rd shot. A very strategic risk v reward hole.

I never said that RMW is an inferior course – far from it – all I have stated is that I believe KH to be at the very least considered the equal if not slightly better than it as purely a stand-alone layout. Like Rsheehy says and “many people are blinded to RMW's weaknesses because the place is so revered”. Don’t get me wrong – I am a huge MacKenzie fan and have played some of his earlier overseas layouts (Moortown + Alwoodley) but are interested to hear the reasons why people rate RMW so highly ?

RMW’s stretch of holes 3-7 are arguably the best in Australia but I believe 14-18 to be their equal in terms of variety of design. With regard to the Q is there a better set of 5 consecutive holes on the planet ? I would say very quickly from what I’ve played 14-18 at Carnoustie…14-18 at Royal St George’s…5-9 at Muirfield…6-10 at Turnberry….7-11 at Ballybunion (Old) [in no particular order] and from what I’ve seen on TV Augusta’s 11-15…to name a few are ‘World Class’ and the holes at RMW / KH are certainly in that company.

#30 Uncle_Leo


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7928 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 01:20 AM


Let me start by saying that ranking the holes as they fall on the scorecard against one another is pointless. How can you for example rank a par 3 against a par 5 and determine which is the "better hole"?

I much prefer the concept of ranking each hole individually out of 10, as follows:

1 RMW -7, KH -8
2 RMW -8, KH -7
3 RMW -10, KH -10
4 RMW -10, KH -7
5 RMW -10, KH -8
6 RWM -10, KH -9
7 RMW -9, KH -9
8 RMW -8, KH -8
9 RMW -9, KH -10

Score after front nine RMW -81, KH 76. RMW leads by 5

10 RMW -10, KH -10
11 RMW -9, KH 8 (9 without the bunker in the middle)
12 RMW -8, KH -9
13 RMW -9, KH -8
14 RMW -9, KH -10
15 RMW -7, KH -10
16 RMW -10, KH -9
17 RMW -10, KH -9
18 RMW -9, KH -9

Score for back nine - RMW 81, KH -82

Overall scores RMW -162, KH -158

RMW wins by 4.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users